Tag Archives: political parties

Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

Regarding the People’s Republic of China’s attempted seizure of the East, and in particular, the South China Sea and the associated PRC seizure of seabed minerals, below the seabed oil and gas deposits, and surface fishing rights,

The US said it doesn’t take a position on sovereignty over the South China Sea but insists on freedom of navigation and overflight. About 30 percent of global trade passes through the South China Sea, which also has rich fishing grounds and a potential wealth of undersea mineral deposits.

We need to take a position on sovereignty over the South China Sea, exactly for sovereignty, that international trade, those fishing rights, and those minerals and oil and gas deposits.

We say we’re for freedom of the seas, but that begins with recognition of what are international waters and what are not. The South China Sea, and the East China Sea, are international waters, not internal lakes of this or that country.

Various nations’ Exclusive Economic Zones extend far into the Seas. Various nations have far more legitimate territorial claims to a number of the islands in those Seas.

We should be working with those nations—Brunei, the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, et al.—to help them resolve their disagreements over whose territory those islands are, we should be working with those nations to help them resolve their disputes over Economic Zone overlaps.

Given the PRC’s open lawlessness regarding those waters and those islands, we should be working these dispute resolutions with the explicit exclusion of the PRC in those talks.

“Justice” Redux

Posted on by
Reply

It turns out the Secret Service Director, Joseph Clancy, not only can’t keep his Secret Service straight, he can’t even keep his own stories about what he heard about his Secret Service’s misbehavior straight. The AP has reported, via Fox News, that Clancy’s claims of when he heard “rumors” of his agency’s illegal search of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz’ personnel records keeps changing.

What’s interesting to me about this, though, is what the AP buried at the end of its article.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Friday that his department will proceed “expeditiously” to determine whether any laws or policies were broken. To avoid a conflict of interest, Johnson said the determination about accountability will be made by him and not Clancy.

DHS will decide whether any laws were broken? Whatever happened to DoJ and its role in determining whether any laws were broken?

Oh, wait….

“Justice”

Posted on by
Reply

The Justice Department announced Friday afternoon that it will not bring criminal charges against Lois Lerner or any other IRS official involved in the targeting of Tea Party groups[.]

There’s a surprise. Why would anyone think President Barack Obama’s DoJ would prosecute anyone in Obama’s IRS for their abuse of IRS—of Executive Branch—power in the IRS’ persecution of groups of Americans of whom Obama disapproves?

Debt Limits

Posted on by
Reply

The reason we need to raise the national debt limit is to be able to borrow to pay existing obligations. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew’s threats that he can’t won’t pay our veterans, soldiers, and retireds is nothing but politically motivated, dishonest foolishness. He can pay these; the tax revenues are plenty for that. What he won’t be able to pay are the payables to Federal contractors and a number of other bills. Those are legitimately owed, though, and they need to be paid.

There’s also plenty of money coming in to pay the interest on our national debt—so there’ll be no default, either. That’s just nonsense.

What’s unacceptable, though, is the Democrats’ refusal to go along with a debt-raise bill that includes spending cuts that will obviate the need to raise the debt ceiling next year and in the out years. President Barack Obama has even said he’ll veto a debt-raise bill that includes such preventive measures. He’s said it’s nonnegotiable.

That’s unconscionable. The Democrats’ addiction to spending—and it is an addiction—has got to be broken. If the only way to cut spending so we don’t need to increase our borrowings next year is to close the Federal government, so be it.

But the Republicans, including the right side, and their “communications” directors had better be able to sell the shutdown to the nation’s public. Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD) said it:

[T]hey ought to all be fired[.]

Unfortunately, he wasn’t looking in a mirror when he said it.

Turn the rascals out in a year and a month.

Lies of the Democrat

Posted on by
Reply

Or of the proud Progressive who wants to be President.

From the just concluded Benghazi hearing interview of Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, we learned this:

At 11:12 pm on the night of the attack, Sept 11, 2012, Mrs Clinton emailed her daughter Chelsea that, “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al-Qaeda-like group: the Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w[ith] a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.”

And this:

…a State Department summary of Mrs Clinton’s call the next day, Sept 12, with Egypt’s Prime Minister. “We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest,” Mrs. Clinton said. The call summary then blocks out a comment by the Egyptian, to which Mrs. Clinton replies, “Your [sic] not kidding. Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”

Compare that with her public statements in the immediate aftermath that it was a YouTube video that was responsible, and compare that with her statements on meeting the coffins of the murdered Ambassador and three of those who tried to protect him, repeating her claim that it was a YouTube video that was responsible.

Remember that display of Clintonian…integrity…in a year and a month.